U.S. Offers Conditional Support for Police Monitor in Stop-and-Frisk Case

By J. DAVID GOODMAN

June 13, 2013

The Justice Department on Wednesday waded into a federal trial over the New York Police Department’s stop-and-frisk practices, strongly endorsing a monitor to oversee changes if a judge were to find the practices to be unconstitutional.

But the so-called statement of interest, which the department filed late Wednesday in Federal District Court in Manhattan, stopped short of offering the Justice Department itself as a monitor for the Police Department.

The Justice Department lamented that the court had decided to address questions of fact — whether the department systematically violated New Yorkers’ rights — and the question of remedies at the same time, saying it would have preferred to weigh in only after the former had been decided.

In its carefully worded 21-page statement, the Justice Department took no position on matters of fact in the case. But should the court find against the city, the Justice Department said, it would endorse the use of a court-appointed monitor. “The experience of the United States in enforcing police reform injunctions teaches that the appointment of an independent monitor is a critically important asset,” the department said.

The statement added: “A court-appointed monitor in this case would help the court ensure that, if any pattern or practice is found to exist, it is effectively and sustainably remedied.”

The judge in the case, Shira A. Scheindlin, is set to decide in the coming months whether such violations existed in the Police Department’s tactic of stopping, questioning and frisking New Yorkers.

The trial, which ended in late May after two months of testimony, has emerged as a flash point in the mayoral race, with candidates drawing stark lines over whether they would embrace the tactics, strongly associated with Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, or seek to end them if elected.

At times during the trial, Judge Scheindlin appeared skeptical of crucial aspects of the city’s defense. In an earlier trial related to a smaller number of police stops in the Bronx, she found widespread constitutional violations.

Should Judge Scheindlin find similarly in this case, Floyd v. City of New York, the next step would be to order the Police Department to make changes.

Wednesday was the deadline for parties in the suit to file their final post-trial motions. Though not a party to the lawsuit, the Justice Department has the standing to offer its views in any federal case, to provide its interpretation of case law and opinion on the best course forward.

Civil rights advocates, as well as some local and federal elected officials, have long called for the Justice Department to get involved in monitoring the practices of the Police Department and its tactics for street stops. Before the Justice Department filed its papers, the mayor’s office echoed statements that had been made throughout the trial, describing New York as “the safest big city in the country,” thanks to the Police Department’s work, and saying that the administration would “continue giving them the support and tools they need to do their jobs.”

The Justice Department challenged the notion, often cited by Mr. Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly, that a court-appointed monitor would diminish the Police Department’s ability to fight crime.

“In the experience of the United States,” the statement read, “reform through a court-ordered process improves public confidence, makes officers’ jobs safer, and increases the ability of the department to fight crime.”

The statement pointed to examples of several other cities in which monitors addressed court-ordered changes, including Seattle, Washington and Detroit. And it dismissed the suggestion that existing oversight mechanisms for the New York police were sufficient, should civil rights violations be found by the court, arguing that the existing structures focused on individual misconduct, not structural changes.

The lawsuit, brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights and others, claims that the Police Department has a policy of stopping and frisking black and Hispanic New Yorkers without suspicion of any criminality. Such stops of minorities are disproportionate to the black and Hispanic population and nearly 90 percent of the time result in no arrest or summons. Lawyers who brought the case argued that those facts provided evidence that the stops were unconstitutionally based on race or ethnicity.

City lawyers have responded that the high number of minority stops reflected the percentage of violent crimes committed by black and Hispanic men and, in some cases, was lower than would be expected based on descriptions of suspects. Mr. Kelly, who did not testify, and Mr. Bloomberg have strongly defended the Police Department’s practices, saying they were an integral part of reducing crime in the city.